United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ABSOLUTE ACTIVIST VALUE MASTER FUND LIMITED, ABSOLUTE EAST WEST FUND LIMITED, ABSOLUTE EAST WEST MASTER FUND LIMITED, ABSOLUTE EUROPEAN CATALYST FUND LIMITED, ABSOLUTE GERMANY FUND LIMITED, ABSOLUTE INDIA FUND LIMITED, ABSOLUTE OCTANE FUND LIMITED, ABSOLUTE OCTANE MASTER FUND LIMITED, and ABSOLUTE RETURN EUROPE FUND LIMITED, Plaintiffs,
SUSAN ELAINE DEVINE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
E. STEELE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration of Court's Opinion and Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Her Motion for Award of Costs and
Fees (Doc. #770) filed on August 29, 2019. Plaintiff filed a
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #774) on September 12, 2019.
Also before the Court is defendant’s Amended Motion for
Leave to Submit Attorney Billing records for In
Camera Review (Doc. #772) and plaintiffs’
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #774).
August 1, 2019, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (Doc.
#761) granting in part and denying in part defendant’s
Motion for Award of Costs and Fees. The Court granted taxable
costs and some non-taxable expenses pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(d), but no attorney fees. Under Rule 60(b),
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time
to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by
an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Defendant appears to rely solely on
Rule 60(b)(6), and the Court finds that (1) through (5) do
not apply, except as to the one issue of ‘newly
discovered evidence.’ “Federal courts grant
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) only for extraordinary
circumstances.” Frederick v. Kirby Tankships,
Inc., 205 F.3d 1277, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). “Consequently, relief under Rule 60(b)(6)
requires showing ‘extraordinary circumstances’
justifying the reopening of a final judgment.”
Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 628 (11th Cir. 2014)
(citations and quotation marks omitted). “The courts
have delineated three major grounds justifying
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153
F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). “It is well
established in this circuit that ‘[a]dditional facts
and arguments that should have been raised in the first
instance are not appropriate grounds for a motion for
reconsideration.’” Wallace v. Holder,
846 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1248 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (citation omitted).
Court opinions are “not intended as mere first drafts,
subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's
pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco
Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
argues that it would be manifestly unjust to deny her: (1)
the attorney fees pursuant to Rule 37(d) attributable
exclusively to plaintiffs’ failure to appear at the
depositions; (2) an award pursuant to the Court’s
inherent authority for the costs and attorneys’ fees;
and (3) an award for damages against the $10, 000 TRO Bond.
Attorney Fees under Rule 37(d)
Court found that defendant was entitled to fees and expenses
as a sanction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) for the failure
of plaintiff’s counsel to attend properly noticed
depositions. The Court noted that “Defendant incurred
costs in the amount of $28, 200.86 as a result of
plaintiffs’ failure to attend the depositions. (Doc.
#742, ¶ 28.)” (Doc. #761, p. 26.) However,
defendant did not provide any redacted billing statements to
support this specific amount, and Matthew D. Lee’s
original Declaration instead offered “[t]o the extent
that the Court wishes to examine Ms. Devine’s
counsels’ unredacted billing records to verify that the
sums cited herein are accurate, Ms. Devine will submit those
records to the Court for in camera review.” (Doc. #714,
p. 7 n.2.) As a result, the ...